Fast Array Init help.

**kramerr** · 06-10-2010

So lets say I have a function which accepts an array:

Code:

void Foo(int* data);

I can pass data to it like this:

Code:

int[] data = {1,2,3};
Foo(data);

But I don't like the way I've got to initialize a variable when I just want to send some static data. What I want to do is call the function like this:

Code:

Foo((int[]){1,2,3});

Except that doesn't work. How can I pass an array to a function without setting it up in a variable beforehand?

**quzah** · 06-10-2010

Why on earth would you want to do that? And how do you expect to know how big your array is once it gets there? I suppose you could use the va_* macros. But that seems like kind of a waste.

Anyway, the reason that doesn't work is because when arrays get passed to functions, it doesn't actually pass the array. It passes the address of the first element via pointer.

Quzah.

**cas** · 06-10-2010

This is possible in C99, using precisely the syntax you use as an example. They're called compound literals.

C99, if you're not aware, is the 1999 revision of the previous (1989/1990) C standard. It's not as widely implemented as C89/C90, so if you're looking for maximum portability, you're out of luck. But if you are willing to require a C99-ish compiler (recent versions of gcc, Intel's C compiler, clang, Open64, and Sun Studio, at least, support compound literals), go for it.

**kramerr** · 06-10-2010

When dealing with functions that accept arrays of chars I can do this:

Code:

Foo("Hello World");

Which genarates an array of characters and passes its reference to the function all in one line of code. Why can't I do something simmilar with an array of integers?

**quzah** · 06-10-2010

What you're trying to do isn't the same thing. Arrays of character aren't the same as arrays of integers. String literals make a pointer to a hard coded string, which you can't modify. You don't pass an actual array, you pass a pointer to it.

Quzah.

**QuantumPete** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by quzah

Arrays of character aren't the same as arrays of integers.

Since when? Pointer is pointer. OK, the type may vary but apart from that, they behave exactly the same. And whether my function takes a

Code:

const char* const

or a

Code:

const int * const

doesn't make any difference.

QuantumPete

**Bayint Naung** · 06-11-2010

What advantage will you get by being able to do so?

Code:

int[] data = {1,2,3};   // java ?

**quzah** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by QuantumPete

Since when? Pointer is pointer. OK, the type may vary but apart from that, they behave exactly the same.

I meant you can't do:

Code:

foo( "intoneinttwointthreeintfourintfive" );

They don't behave the same as a string. That's why I said twice that you can't do that in the way he wants. You can't make a quote-contained array of numbers. How would you know what this meant?

foo( "123343242342342" );

How many numbers is that? That's why I said you can't do what you want the way you would with a string of characters. See, with a string, each byte is its own number. Not so with multi-byte values.

Quzah.

**iMalc** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by kramerr

But I don't like the way I've got to initialize a variable when I just want to send some static data. What I want to do is call the function like this:

Code:

Foo((int[]){1,2,3});

Except that doesn't work. How can I pass an array to a function without setting it up in a variable beforehand?

Like it or not, you simply can't do that with ints in C.
C++ on the other hand, is a different story.

**Bayint Naung** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by iMalc

Like it or not, you simply can't do that with ints in C.
C++ on the other hand, is a different story.

You can if you have C99 compiler. cas has already pointed out.

**msh** · 06-11-2010

Could you be more specific what "doesn't work"?

An error message or a description of the perceived/expected/experienced behavior would be a good start.

(I didn't have to force C99 mode on GCC 4.4.0 to pass compound literals as function arguments.)

**cas** · 06-11-2010

(I didn't have to force C99 mode on GCC 4.4.0 to pass compound literals as function arguments.)

That would be because gcc, by default, is neither a C90 nor a C99 compiler; rather, it compiles a language known as GNU C, which is a mix of C90, C99, and extensions. So some C99 features work by default in gcc, but others don't.

**msh** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by cas

That would be because gcc, by default, is neither a C90 nor a C99 compiler; rather, it compiles a language known as GNU C, which is a mix of C90, C99, and extensions. So some C99 features work by default in gcc, but others don't.

I wasn't aware of that tidbit. Cheers!

**siavoshkc** · 06-11-2010

I don't like the way I've got to initialize a variable when I just want to send some static data.

You just need to be able to create unnamed arrays. It needs compiler support. But it doesn't give you any speed or code size benefit.

**iMalc** · 06-11-2010

Originally Posted by Bayint Naung

You can if you have C99 compiler. cas has already pointed out.

OH, I didn't see that post sorry. Glad to stand corrected.

HOLY CRAP!

Thread: Fast Array Init help.

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Fast Array Init help.

Similar Threads

FAST method to copy char array?

Array of structures in a class, init

how to init 2d array ?

Template Array Class

two dimensional dynamic array?